Interpreting Court Judgments In Nigeria

 By Tonnie Iredia

During Nigeria’s First and Second Republics, not many people had faith in the country ’s judiciary. To start with, court cases dragged on for too long; making it practically impossible for litigants to enjoy the fruits of judicial victories. In other cases, many criminals were set free on account of some technicalities couched in Latin that ordinary people never understood.

Part of the assignments of some transition bodies set up during military rule was to educate Nigerians on the dangers of extra- judicial activities. But if the truth must be told, it has been quite difficult to persuade politicians to follow the sermons on the rule of law which seem to provide inconsequential efficacy.

Years ago, there were Nigerian politicians who had no patience for a long wait to take a seat in parliament when they could have been returned unopposed even before voting by merely organising thugs to kill their opponents. However, political assassinations have reduced considerably since 1999 but they have been replaced by a new design by which the judiciary is used to win cases, especially election petitions.

The danger is that those who are unable to command what it takes to manipulate the judiciary may, as time goes on, be forced to return to such evils as assassinations while proclaiming that their ambition is not worth the blood of fellow citizens. If this must be prevented from recurring, there is no better time than now to stop our judges who speak in tongues while on duty

In Nigeria today, every court judgment or judicial pronouncement is often subjected to multiple interpretations by the different parties in a case. This usually happens when two or more courts with coordinate jurisdiction give contradicting rulings on the same case. Another aspect is when some courts grant daily ex parte orders despite the repeated caution of the Chief Justice of the Federation against such behaviour.

At the same time, there is the issue of jurisdiction which should ordinarily not be difficult to ascertain; yet, many courts hear and determine several cases where the law states clearly that they have no jurisdiction. When that happens, all we hear is that those adversely affected should go on appeal. But can the judiciary not stop it from happening at all?

If a layman does not know the court which has jurisdiction to hear his case, are his lawyers and the judge to whose court the case was assigned also ignorant of the law? This question and some others that many of my readers have asked me in the last one month and which I obviously have no answers for are raised in this piece in the hope that someone can help me out.

The first set of questions I received had to do with the reinstatement of Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II of Kano. Whereas the federal court presided over by Justice Abdullahi Liman nullified the reinstatement of the Emir, a state high court, presided over by Justice Aminu Adamu Aliyu, issued a restraining order preventing the police, the DSS and the military from forcibly re- moving Sanusi 11.

What explains why both a state and a federal high court located in the same city were both hearing the same case is the issue of jurisdiction which is essentially one of the mysteries of our legal system. It is only a court that can determine whether it has juris- diction over a case or not de- spite what the law says. Those who believe that Justice Liman had no jurisdiction argued that the case of Emirship being a chieftaincy matter ought to be a state affair. But then, Jurisdiction in Nigeria is more than mathematics hence the pro-federal judge claimed that those dis- placed by the new Kano chieftaincy law were bothered about their fundamental human rights which they think explains the interest of the federal judge.

The only other persons who understand the issue of jurisdiction between the state and federal courts are our lawmakers who in their own self- interest ensured that the federal high courts were so empowered especially in political matters. While the rest of us are bothered that there is some confusion in the system, our legislators are comfortable.

This is because once a federal legislator sees the need to institute a case, it is the federal high court that first occurs to him because it can be difficult getting justice from a state high court which a state governor has control over. In other words, confusion in our courts was deliberately planted by politicians hence judgments in those courts are always communicated in such a way that they can be interpreted to suit any party’s position.

If applied to the lingering case between the executive and the legislature in Rivers State, it is easy to see every party interpreting last week’s judgment of the Court of Ap- peal on the fate of majority of the lawmakers as it suits them. The decision of the court which was in favour of the Amaewhule-led legislators said nothing about the real subject in contention. Instead, it nullified the previous contrary order on the grounds that the state high court which earlier determined the case had no jurisdiction. But the real issue of whether or not speaker Amaewhule and his colleagues had lost their seats for decamping to another party is yet to be resolved.

Also last week, an Abuja federal high court presided over by Justice Inyang Ekwogave a judgment concerning the Edo PDP governorship primaries that everyone is still busy debating. The real order made by the court was that certain lawfully elected delegates must not be excluded from the party’s primaries scheduled for February 22, 2024. How does anyone understand such an order to be carried out concerning an election that had already been conducted some 5 months ago?

What would the court have lost if it had declined to make such an academic order which had been overtaken by events? While some people would have appreciated the need to penalise a careless political party, there is doubt if such an intention would have made sense considering the position of the law on internal matters of a political party

If it is true as some critics have argued that the litigants being delegates and not aspirants ought not to have been allowed to bring up such a case, what public good was served in dealing with the case at all? Talking about the public good what exactly are our courts enjoying in the unending litigations that distract governance?

The judiciary as an arm of government cannot be exculpated from blame if it does not work together with other arms of government to assist Nigeria to attain good governance that can improve the living standards of the people. For example, it is clear that asking parties to maintain status quo is severally interpreted to suit each person’s wish. If so, of what use is a jargon if all those to whom it is addressed, do not have same meaning for it?

Considering the level of confusion that the term status quo has been causing in society by those who are exploiting it, is it not time for judges to clearly spell out the true position they want par- ties to maintain? No one needs to be a professional communicator to recognise the defect in using a term that is subject to more than one meaning.

In other words, engaging in effective communication can easily enhance the prospects of relevant actors in the justice delivery system attaining greater professional competence. As it is today in Nigeria, it is difficult to make the average citizen to comprehend the rationale for certain judgments even if translated into local dialects of the people. The real problem is that there is too much of working to the answer especially when compared with other cases with similar facts.

The trend whereby Nigerian court judgments are never self-explicit is worrisome as the trend continues to adversely affect the image of our judiciary that was in times past internationally respected. Painfully, majority of our judges who have continued to perform well are watching helplessly as a few of their colleagues are holding high an inglorious emblem on behalf of all. If per chance any law enforcement agency invades judges’ home again in search of different currencies, no one should be surprised if it elicits public applause across the nation.

*Dr. Iredia is former DG, Nigerian Television Authority (NTA)